MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preliminary Investigation of the Panic Screening Score for Emergency Department Patients With Unexplained Chest Pain

2011· article· en· W1521663729 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Foldes‐Busque, Richard Fleet, Julien Poitras, Jean‐Marc Chauny, Geneviève Belleville, Isabelle Denis, Jean G. Diodati, Marie‐Ève Pelland, Marie‐Josée Lessard, André Marchand

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalCégep de LévisHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentPanicConfidence intervalAnxietyChest painReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionPanic disorderInternal medicinePredictive value of testsPredictive validityPhysical therapyPsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to demonstrate the derivation and the preliminary validation of a brief screening score to improve recognition of panic-like anxiety in emergency department (ED) patients with unexplained chest pain. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 507 ED patients with unexplained chest pain randomly assigned to the derivation condition (n = 201) or the validation condition (n = 306). The Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV (ADIS-IV) acted as the criterion standard for panic diagnosis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine which of the sociodemographic, medical, and questionnaire response variables best predicted the presence of panic-like anxiety in the derivation condition. The selected predictors were entered in a logistic regression analysis to determine variables to be included in the screening score. The predictive validity of the resulting score was evaluated in both conditions. RESULTS: The four-item Panic Screening Score (PSS) identified panic-like anxiety with a sensitivity of 63% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 52% to 73%) and a specificity of 84% (95% CI = 76% to 90%) in the derivation phase. The positive predictive value was 74% (95% CI = 62% to 93%) and the negative predictive value was 76% (95% CI = 68% to 89%). In the validation phase, the sensitivity and specificity were 53% (95% CI = 44% to 62%) and 85% (95% CI = 78% to 89%), respectively. The positive predictive value was 72% (95% CI = 62% to 80%) and the negative predictive value was 71% (95% CI = 65% to 77%). CONCLUSIONS: The PSS may be useful to identify patients with unexplained chest pain who could benefit from referral to mental health professionals or their primary care providers for evaluation of panic attack and panic disorder. Prospective studies to improve and validate the PSS, followed by impact analysis, are mandatory before clinical implementation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207